SBC Ignores Cries For Naked DSL

from the how-many-requests-move-up-the-chain? dept

Not a surprise at all, but SBC claims that the reason they’re not offering naked DSL is because no one seems to want it. While they’re probably correct that people are interested in bundled services, that doesn’t mean people don’t want naked DSL. From the comments on this issue (and my own experience) it’s obvious that plenty of people do want it — but SBC is making a tidy profit in forcing people like me (who has a phone line that isn’t hooked up to any phone, and whose number I don’t even know) to bundle useless phone service. Of course, the whole resistance to naked DSL should be proof positive that the market for broadband services in the US isn’t competitive at all. If there really were a competitive market place, I’d have other options that aren’t force bundled. Instead, the only options are forced bundled DSL or force bundled cable (which either requires cable TV, or makes it ridiculously expensive). And, since cable rates remain artificially high and cable has shown itself to be ridiculously unreliable it seems that we’re stuck for the time being. With Presidential promises on broadband proving to be nothing more than talk (as expected) and the FCC’s idea of “competition” in broadband to be a technology (BPL) that almost never seems to work, it doesn’t seem like things will change any time soon. Then, of course, when local governments actually try to do anything, they’re attacked as being communists for trying to offer broadband. Oh well. I guess we’re learning that the FCC’s morality/indecency campaign wasn’t just about covering up Janet Jackson’s nudity, but DSL’s as well.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “SBC Ignores Cries For Naked DSL”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
ripped-off-by-sbc-squirrel says:

I want it

I have a storage site / business site that I have DSL in for security. I have to have a phone number for no reason there to have DSL in for my security. I would drop the phone in a heartbeat. Of course the cost of dsl would go up another $25 if I did that though, so this argument is probably muted.

Also, the reason they don’t want bare DSL is that you only need to have DSL + vonnage (less than the $50 / line unlimited “bargain” they offer). or DSL + some way to terminate SIP phone calls into numbered phones, and you’d need no phone service of any kind either.

This is a case where unbundling would make incredible sense.

Same with the cell companies, but that’s another topic.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I want it

Grammar-and-usage-nazi I hope you fall into a well and die.
This is a blog, not a professional letter, so who gives a flying *uck if someone makes a few typos misses an apostrophe or incorrectly uses a word. There is a time and a place for grammar-and-usage-nazi’s and this really isn’t it asshole.

Johnny5 says:

Re: Re: Re: I want it

“Usage Nazi”: There are a lot of people out there who don’t write the English language according to your standards. Most of them don’t really care, and you’re wasting your breath pointing out their mistakes. If you let it bother you, you’re adding a lot of unnecessary aggravation to your life. You will be a less happy person.

Anonymous Coward: Spelling/grammar trolls are abound on the internet. You will also be happier if you just let it go. Take comfort in the fact that they’re spinning their wheels about, really, nothing. The troll doesn’t care about your opinion of their trolling.

The GT Guy (user link) says:

Cable Reliability

I worked in the telco business for years and agree naked DSL is a good idea. I know certain telcos are working on it as I have contacts. However, my experience with cable net access is much better than with DSL. My cable, in 1.5 years, has gone down once for 30 minutes. I stayed on the phone with my DSL provider in contrast.

Things change …

Joe Baderderm says:

SBC Local required for DSL

I was going to change my ISP to SBC DSL but SBC screwed up our switch to one of their bundled services (we still use the line). They wouldn’t give us the long distance services we wanted, because “we didn’t already have their long distance service”?!?! [Yes that was exactly how they explained it to us several times.]

Anyways, we didn’t even want to mess with their DSL services at that point (we were already internet-less for a week) and decided to switch all of our calling plans to AT&T (including local). All of the “major” DSL carriers that served our area required SBC local service for some strange/dumb reason. Except AT&T, which went through Covad. And we also haven’t really paid attention to the news much and didn’t realize that SBC was acquiring AT&T. So we switched to the same company or something like that.

If cable were cheaper, we would have just switched to Comcast (which used to be AT&T Broadband in our area) and forgot about the DSL service. We haven’t quite gotten to the point where we are only using our cell phones, but we are getting closer.

Chomper says:

No Subject Given

I was going to say, in the New Jersey area, DSL is horrible and cable is king. Cablevision, although I hate their guts, has the best internet service out of everyone in the area. It is consistent to the point where I had one outage over a three year period.

The prices are a bit high, but then again, with four people in the house, it’s a bargain compared other alternatives like going back to dialup.

rick says:

get naked dsl on SBC lines

You can get naked DSL (in some locations, like Chicago) over SBC lines if SpeakEasy DSL is available in your area. check them out at they also rock because their TOS are great, you can host your own servers, and even resell your bandwith, or open a wifi hotspot- all completely legally. Try doing that with cable! i have had speakeasy for about 10 months and I couldn’t be happier

rick says:

Re: Re: get naked dsl on SBC lines

mike, that stinks- i’m paying $60 a month right now for speakeasy, the cheapest i could get with SBC+local was around 75. granted, i’m in chicago so there is a cable monopoly in my neighborhood that makes cable much more expensive than in other neighborhoods where there is a choice (i’m stuck with comcast, some neighborhoods also have rcn, which has the best digital cable/modem combo deal i’m aware of)- let me know what the quote from speakeasy was vs. sbc, i’d love to know if i could haggle with them over pricing!

rick says:

Re: Re: Re:2 get naked dsl on SBC lines

wow, that is crazy. like i said i have speakeasy service and it’s “onelink” no phone line required. check it out here:
i couldn’t love it more, and it’s a decent deal for 1.5 down/768 up, but there is no way i’d pay 99 for it. 55 is pretty much my limit- which is much less than i’d pay for cable+cable modem. I know the speakeasy modem itself is 99, but I’m sure the service is 55. anyway, hope that helps- it’s still not as cheap as SBC/Yahoo dsl, but I’m betting the quality is better, and the TOS are much better. of course if you’re not concerned about those, then it really doesn’t matter. good luck searching!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...